Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    June 8, 2015 11:30am-12:01pm PDT

11:30 am
11:31 am
11:32 am
11:33 am
11:34 am
11:35 am
11:36 am
11:37 am
11:38 am
11:39 am
11:40 am
11:41 am
11:42 am
11:43 am
11:44 am
11:45 am
11:46 am
11:47 am
11:48 am
11:49 am
11:50 am
11:51 am
11:52 am
11:53 am
11:54 am
11:55 am
11:56 am
>> if the rule applies if chris lee was ferrell's agent and as to whether that is true, doesn't that potentially relate to whether the statute of limitations should be told? >> i really don't understand the question. the commission was put on notice in december 2010, january 2011. what the law says is that, the agency never ever learned about a potential violation the day it happened. by definition, the district attorneys office and the agency is going to warn about the possibility of a violation at some point. there is never going to be a 4 years to research this
11:57 am
issue. maybe it's a year, maybe 2 years. because the commission knew within the 4-year period, then it had the legal duty and you have a legal duty to bring an action by october 2014. now, it might be an entirely different case if the commission and no one learned about this until september 2014, but we don't have that. >> okay, so how do you draw the line then. what if we learned that on december 30, 2014. that's before the statute ran. why isn't that then enough? >> it was three 1/2 years. >> where is the line, two 1/2. >> the commission could have done this. we have all been involved in cases where the government and i'm not sure the district attorney's office does it anywhere else wants to previous the statute. what does the government do? they rush and prepare the report and they serve it simply to
11:58 am
preserve the statute or they ask the defendant, would you wave the statute of limitations. it happens all the time. here it didn't happen because the commission. your executive director made a decision to not move forward. so if there is fraud, he could have brought charges by october 2014. he chose not to bring charges and the most important point is the point you made. i do not know what goes on in closed session. so we do not know what the commission knew or didn't know about pending enforcement matters. i do know in other cities, the executive director makes a report every month in closed session to his commissioners about all pending enforcement matters and it sounds like that didn't happen here. it sounds like that is not a good procedure. i don't think that is a procedure that falls in other cities.
11:59 am
but you cannot penalize supervisor ferrell because the commission had a break down in procedure or didn't follow procedures. your executive decorator -- director chose not to bring charges even if they knew about it 3 years and 10 months early. >> i have one more question and i apologize for monopolizing the time but to help me understand. let's say someone complains about a campaign in november 2010 or december 2010. we look at it, we don't think anything is there. time goes on. the fppc in the investigation learns, wow, there is really something going on here, why wouldn't the discovery rule apply there? so you didn't know at the time, in 2010, you learn 2
12:00 pm
years later. then isn't the question of whether or not the supervisor really did have an agency relationship? >> now i understand your question. the discovery rule is based on the situation where a defendant or someone intentionally fraudulently consciously affirmively hides the information and conducting an interview is reasonable. what happened in the boat right case is, again, i don't know all the facts but senator boat right left some financial information off his form. there would be no reason to know that. some lawsuit happened years later. part of that lawsuit turned out that senator boat right had this financial interest. the concealment was